egafd.com

"I wouldn't call you dumb, David. You're just to fundamentalist in your politics to tolerate anything different or new."

Again you come out with your silly, juvenile lie. The lie you have used so many times before and refused to apologise for when challenged. I am not against coalition government per se which I have stated many times. I am against those coalitions where policies are so diametrically opposed. You said you would be against a coalition between the BNP and the Lib Dems. Does that make you a fundamentalist?

"One Lib Dem policy? Ok, when it comes to the economy the Tories got nearly everything they wanted"

Correct!

"but the Lib Dems' policy on raising the income tax threshold to ?10000 is planned for next April. "

Nonsense! This is where your lack of basic knowledge of what has been agreed shows you up. Get hold of a copy of the full coalition agreement and then read it!

Here is the relevant section - We will further increase the personal allowance to ?10,000, making real terms steps each year towards meeting this as a longer term policy objective. There will NOT be an increase of the threshold to ?10,000 next April.

"When it comes to education the Lib Dems have got their pupil premium package through, although it's not clear how much of the ?2.5billion the Lib Dems wanted to spend they'll get."

Pathetic !happy!

"Then there's the much talked about AV, which we wouldn't have even got to the table if the Tories or Labour had won outright."

Ah yes AV, the option which has nothing to do with proportional representation and would have minimum impact on Lib Dem results in previous years. And if there is a referendum on it, of course the Tories will be campaigning hard against it.

"They can abstain from any policy they want."

Again this highlights your complete ignorance of what you blather on about. The coalition agreement specifically highlights those policies which the Lib Dems are allowed to abstain on and those which they have agreed to vote with. The coalition does not allow the Lib Dems to abstain from any policy they want. If they do, it will bring the coalition down.

I am getting a tad bored with shredding your arguments Sam. Surely you can do better than a mixture of lies, ignorance of the coalition agreement and insults?

Cheers
D

"I gave my reasons why I think the Tories would win a second election after a short minority government. If you don't agree with my logic then argue against it. "

I forgot to mention your Gypsy Rose Slater shtick.

Try to remember election night. Then try to remember the poll issued at the closure of the polls. Not one political commentator believed that the poor performance of the Lib Dems as reflected in that poll, could be correct. All the Lib Dem speakers said that it did not correspond in any way to their indications of what was going to happen.

Maybe you are so arrogant that you feel that you are far better than all of these political commentators and can predict what will happen in an election at some undetermined time in the future. Sam you can't.

In short, the Tories are getting nearly all their key measures through with the support of Lib Dem votes in the main. The Lib Dems are hardly getting any of their key measures through. When you have read the coalition document and understood it, you will see that to be the case. And the extent of the betrayal for many people who voted Lib Dem.

Your only argument in favour of a coalition which allows all these Tory measures to become law is guesswork that the Conservatives would win a majority at some undetermined time in the future.

I noted with interest that Bolton Council announced on Friday, the first council in the North West to outline the impact of the Lib Deb Con cuts. The size of the Council will have to be cut by 40%. One wonders how many similar council announcements with resulting job cuts will have to be made before your crystal ball gazings start to look a bit dodgy even to Gypsy Rose Slater?

Cheers
D

[quote]Again you come out with your silly, juvenile lie. The lie you have used so many times before and refused to apologise for when challenged. I am not against coalition government per se which I have stated many times. I am against those coalitions where policies are so diametrically opposed. You said you would be against a coalition between the BNP and the Lib Dems. Does that make you a fundamentalist?[/quote]

Juvenile? Weren't you the one making up silly 'quizzes' based around Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems? Come come, David. And here you go again bringing in the BNP (ala Stalin and Hitler on the same subject a week or two ago). If anyone's been juvenile in all of this.........well....

[quote]"but the Lib Dems' policy on raising the income tax threshold to ?10000 is planned for next April. "

Nonsense! This is where your lack of basic knowledge of what has been agreed shows you up. Get hold of a copy of the full coalition agreement and then read it!

Here is the relevant section - We will further increase the personal allowance to ?10,000, making real terms steps each year towards meeting this as a longer term policy objective. There will NOT be an increase of the threshold to ?10,000 next April.[/quote]

Ok, I got a date wrong, but shown up? You've said on numerous times Lib Dem voters have been 'shafted' and said/implied the Lib Dems only got one single policy of their's through. I was just showing you to be wrong. Pointing out I got a date wrong and stating I've been 'shown up' doesn't alter the fact that the income tax threshold being raised is a Lib Dem policy. What it does show is that you're rather more keen on undermining me rather that admitting you were wrong. Go on, admit you were wrong.

[quote]"When it comes to education the Lib Dems have got their pupil premium package through, although it's not clear how much of the ?2.5billion the Lib Dems wanted to spend they'll get."

Pathetic [/quote]

But correct. Yet another Lib Dem policy despite what you've stated. Go on, admit you were wrong.

[quote]"Then there's the much talked about AV, which we wouldn't have even got to the table if the Tories or Labour had won outright."

Ah yes AV, the option which has nothing to do with proportional representation and would have minimum impact on Lib Dem results in previous years. And if there is a referendum on it, of course the Tories will be campaigning hard against it.[/quote]

But, like I've already said (which you conveniently ignore), we wouldn't even have AV if the Tories or Labour would have won outright. And it's not just about what's good for the Lib Dems, it's about a fairer electoral system for you and me. It's not PR, of course, but when neither the Tories or your party were offering it then there's nothing the Lib Dems could have done anyway.

[quote]"They can abstain from any policy they want."

Again this highlights your complete ignorance of what you blather on about. The coalition agreement specifically highlights those policies which the Lib Dems are allowed to abstain on and those which they have agreed to vote with. The coalition does not allow the Lib Dems to abstain from any policy they want. If they do, it will bring the coalition down. [/quote]

Highlight's my ignorance? I'm sorry, David, I just stated that the Lib Dems can abstain from any policy they want. That's either TRUE or it is FALSE. I never said they can abstain from any policy while keeping the coalition intact, did I? Did I? Did I? My point was to show that if it really came down to it, the Lib Dems can hinder the Tories pushing things through while in a coalition just as affectively as they could if they did what you wanted, which was letting the Tories get on with a minority government. I'm not saying they will, just that they can. So, again, you were wrong to attack me as ignorant. You jumped to conclusions yet again in your eagerness to attack me. You were wrong....go on, admit you were wrong.

[quote]I am getting a tad bored with shredding your arguments Sam. Surely you can do better than a mixture of lies, ignorance of the coalition agreement and insults?[/quote]

Shredding my arguments? Ah, yes, mentioning Hitler, Stalin and the BNP really put me in my place! You've just said things that were either wrong (the Lib Dems have compromised on every one of their policies bar one) or shout out terms such as 'shafted' quite a lot. You also get very excited when you ask me something, to which I agree and you claim a victory when I've never argued against it in the first place! If you've shredded my arguments anywhere then please point them out, David, for I've either clearly missed these instances you you live in a world of your own.

And as for the insults??? Where were those? Me calling you a fundamentalist? !laugh! I'm pretty sure you've accused me of 'silly juvenile lying' and being ignorant (just because of a wrong date and the second time because you jumped to conclusions!). All this and you're bored? Clearly not! You're the one that instigates our little debates, most of the time. It's you who starts these silly quizzes and snipes in thread after thread; it's you who keeps saying it'll be your last post and then I come back the next day and you've replied again........twice! Hardly the actions of a man bored of the topic.

If I had to guess I'd say you still haven't gotten over Labour losing the election. You seem frustrated about how things have turned out but do not want to blame the party you voted for in any way because you think it looks bad on you. YOU don't want to be the naive one, so you call Lib Dem voters naive. YOU don't want to blame your party for the Cameron being at No. 10 so you spend your time ridiculing Clegg, his party and anyone who's defending him/them. YOU don't want to admit you were wrong about how many policies the Lib Dems pushed through in the coalition agreement so you spend your time highlighted how I got a date wrong and how 'ignorant', 'silly', and 'juvenile' Sam is.

But that's just my opinion, David. I'll have to look into my crystal ball to be sure !happy!

Sam,

You accuse me of being fundamentalist because I am not in favour of a coalition in which the Lib Dems have thrown away the vast majority of their principles and policies. If you can prove otherwise, do so.

Lets see a list from you of those policies which the Tories did not want but which the Lib Dems have got as part of the coalition deal.

Put up or shut up!

You said
"Ok, I got a date wrong, but shown up? "

No Sam, you got the entire approach wrong. You, like a lot of Lib Dems were under the impression that the tax threshold was going to be raised to ?10,000 next April. There is a commitment to make a start next April, but no commitment to any date whatsoever to get to ?10,000.

If you can prove otherwise, put up or shut up!

"Highlight's my ignorance? I'm sorry, David, I just stated that the Lib Dems can abstain from any policy they want. That's either TRUE or it is FALSE. I never said they can abstain from any policy while keeping the coalition intact, did I? Did I? Did I? My point was to show that if it really came down to it, the Lib Dems can hinder the Tories pushing things through while in a coalition just as affectively as they could if they did what you wanted, which was letting the Tories get on with a minority government. "

So your point was the following. Any MP can vote for, against or abstain. What a staggeringly useful point, Samuel! I never knew this was the case with regard to voting in Parliament.

I will repeat. The Lib Dems are allowed to vote either for or abstain on a policy by policy basis within the coalition agreement. If they do not follow what has been agreed, the coalition ends because one of the sides has completely ignored the terms of that coalition. In short, the Lib Dems are commited to bolstering all the key measures of the party you would rather eat your face than vote for.

If you can prove otherwise do so. Put up or shut up!

"When it comes to education the Lib Dems have got their pupil premium package through, although it's not clear how much of the ?2.5billion the Lib Dems wanted to spend they'll get."

What value is a policy which needs money and there is no commitment as to the amount to be spent?

I await your list. I have trashed your own list that you used for the basis of voting Lib Dems at the start of this thread. Dont give in so easily. Give me a list of all the positives in the Lib Dem Con coalition from your point of view.

Put up or shut up!

Cheers
D

[quote]Sam,

You accuse me of being fundamentalist because I am not in favour of a coalition in which the Lib Dems have thrown away the vast majority of their principles and policies. If you can prove otherwise, do so.[/quote]

"Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life." - Wikipedia

You've banged on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about compromises in political policies. To me you're being very fundamentalist and all your 'banging on' is proof. Do I need more? No, because fundamentalism is relative. You, on the other hand, have accused the Lib Dems of 'shafting' it's voters. You've also accused many Lib Dem voters as naive. In both you have just as much proof of this as I do about you being a fundamentalist.

[quote]Lets see a list from you of those policies which the Tories did not want but which the Lib Dems have got as part of the coalition deal.

Put up or shut up![/quote]

What do you mean by 'did not want'? I can give you a list of policies the Conservatives have agreed to, which wasn't in their original manifesto, and did so in my previous post. You spouted tripe about the Lib Dems only getting one of their policies through and 'shafting' their voters. Quite clearly you are wrong. Go on, admit you are wrong.

[quote]"Ok, I got a date wrong, but shown up? "

No Sam, you got the entire approach wrong. You, like a lot of Lib Dems were under the impression that the tax threshold was going to be raised to ?10,000 next April. There is a commitment to make a start next April, but no commitment to any date whatsoever to get to ?10,000.[/quote]

My approach wasn't wrong at all. In fact, you can only assume what my 'approach' was. It was, in fact, to show you that the coalition have promised to raise the tax threshold to ?10,000. Whether it was to be next April, or just start next April, and regardless of not knowing how long it will take, it is a Lib Dem policy. If you can prove otherwise, put up or shut up!

[quote]"Highlight's my ignorance? I'm sorry, David, I just stated that the Lib Dems can abstain from any policy they want. That's either TRUE or it is FALSE. I never said they can abstain from any policy while keeping the coalition intact, did I? Did I? Did I? My point was to show that if it really came down to it, the Lib Dems can hinder the Tories pushing things through while in a coalition just as affectively as they could if they did what you wanted, which was letting the Tories get on with a minority government. "

So your point was the following. Any MP can vote for, against or abstain. What a staggeringly useful point, Samuel! I never knew this was the case with regard to voting in Parliament.[/quote]

Well, you did seem to be struggling with those facts.

[quote]I will repeat. The Lib Dems are allowed to vote either for or abstain on a policy by policy basis within the coalition agreement. If they do not follow what has been agreed, the coalition ends because one of the sides has completely ignored the terms of that coalition. In short, the Lib Dems are commited to bolstering all the key measures of the party you would rather eat your face than vote for.

If you can prove otherwise do so. Put up or shut up![/quote]

I already 'put up' here because you've now amended your statement. You've now admitted the Lib Dems can abstain from any bill they choose. Thank you.

[quote]"When it comes to education the Lib Dems have got their pupil premium package through, although it's not clear how much of the ?2.5billion the Lib Dems wanted to spend they'll get."

What value is a policy which needs money and there is no commitment as to the amount to be spent?[/quote]

It's still early days and now both parties have access to the books they'll work out between them what's best, I'm sure. It's still a Lib Dem policy, David. If you can show otherwise then put up or shut up!

[quote]I await your list. I have trashed your own list that you used for the basis of voting Lib Dems at the start of this thread.[/quote]

The only lists that got trashed were Labour voters' lists when the results came in in the early hours of May 6th.....and took out of the bin to be trashed again when they turned their back on their voters and baulked at a centre-left coalition. You didn't provide me with your 'list' David.

[quote]Dont give in so easily. Give me a list of all the positives in the Lib Dem Con coalition from your point of view.[/quote]

I've already given you my list. I've also given you my reasons why I accept why most of them didn't come to fruition. I've been very open during our discussions about what I wanted, expected and how I feel about it all. In stark contrast to you, I may add, who has kept your lists, reasoning and desires to yourself because you just like to point at others and criticise. Did you vote for Labour so they could turn their back on you to save themselves being called names in the press? You talk of me giving up easily????!!!! !laugh!

Just to take one point from that reply, the Lib Dems CANNOT vote against things they have agreed to abstain on. Individual MPs can go against the party whip and vote any way they want, as any MP can as an individual member at any time, but the party whip will enforce the agreement and MPs who dare to go against it will face the usual sanctions.

The Lib Dems cannot vote against things as a unified force as a matter of policy, hence the option to abstain.

Well there you have it. I am a fundamentalist because I don't agree with you. Even though I don't have a problem with centre-left or centre-right coalitions involving compromises, I am still a fundamentalist who is totally against compromise, according to your good self.

The fact that I am opposed to coalitions between parties with diametrically different policies does not save me from this description. Even though my opposition is supported by Charles Kennedy, David Steel, Shirley Williams and Menzies Campbell, all of whom believe that it was not necessary for the Lib Dems to go into coalition with the Tories.

What do these people know about Lib Dem politics compared to you, Sam? They are fundamentalists everyone.

You admit that the Lib Dems have given up on the vast majority of their policies on the timing of the cuts, the economy, defence, immigration, foreign policy, nuclear power, student fees etc and that in return you seem to believe there is a pathetically small list of things in the coalition which were not in the Tory manifesto including ?10,000 tax threshold, but no commitment as to when, pupil premium but no commitment as to how much etc.

You seem to believe that whatever happens the Lib Dems will suffer at the next election. The Lib Dems by being unable to vote against the Tories without risking their own political future in the Lib Dem party at the hands of the Lib Dem whips are bolstering up the policies of the party you, Sam, despise.

Can it get any worse for you?

In this seeming disaster for the Lib Dems that you describe, the only defence you can come up with is that if the Tory minority government went ahead there would have been another election sooner or later and the Tories would get an overall majority. Given that virtually nobody guessed how badly the Lib Dems would do in the last election, seatwise, this is very much pure guesswork on your part. But I understand why, given all the above, you are absolutely desperate to hang on to it. Otherwise the Lib Dem Con coalition is a complete disaster in every sense.

As I said Bolton Council have announced that the cuts will produce a 40% cut in the size of and services availabe from the council. It won't take much more of this before it is difficult to see the Tories getting a majority in any election.

But like a drowning man, I will leave you hanging on to the wreckage of your political beliefs.

Cheers
D

[quote]Well there you have it. I am a fundamentalist because I don't agree with you.[/quote]

Are you implying I said that? I didn't, for the record. If you think otherwise please put up or shut up!

[quote]Even though I don't have a problem with centre-left or centre-right coalitions involving compromises, I am still a fundamentalist who is totally against compromise, according to your good self.[/quote]

You're for compromising? Ha! As soon as I mentioned compromise your first retort was bringing up Hitler and Stalin! Get real, David.

[quote]The fact that I am opposed to coalitions between parties with diametrically different policies does not save me from this description. Even though my opposition is supported by Charles Kennedy, David Steel, Shirley Williams and Menzies Campbell, all of whom believe that it was not necessary for the Lib Dems to go into coalition with the Tories.[/quote]

Lol. Stop feeling sorry for yourself! Have Charles Kennedy, David Steel, Shirley Williams and Menzes Cambell gone on record saying Lib Dem voters are naive, or that those voters have been 'shafted'. Even if they have have they gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it every fucking day for a month? You're obsessed. Labour's loss in the election has affected you more than you want to admit. You're not a councillor that's lost his seat per chance?

[quote]What do these people know about Lib Dem politics compared to you, Sam? They are fundamentalists everyone.[/quote]

See above reply about you going on and on and on.

[quote]You admit that the Lib Dems have given up on the vast majority of their policies on the timing of the cuts, the economy, defence, immigration, foreign policy, nuclear power, student fees etc and that in return you seem to believe there is a pathetically small list of things in the coalition which were not in the Tory manifesto including ?10,000 tax threshold, but no commitment as to when, pupil premium but no commitment as to how much etc.

You seem to believe that whatever happens the Lib Dems will suffer at the next election. The Lib Dems by being unable to vote against the Tories without risking their own political future in the Lib Dem party at the hands of the Lib Dem whips are bolstering up the policies of the party you, Sam, despise.

Can it get any worse for you?[/quote]

I'm sure you've mentioned all this before. On and on and on and on and on...... Labour lost, David.......accept it.

[quote]In this seeming disaster for the Lib Dems that you describe, the only defence you can come up with is that if the Tory minority government went ahead there would have been another election sooner or later and the Tories would get an overall majority.[/quote]

Yep, that's what I think.

[quote]Given that virtually nobody guessed how badly the Lib Dems would do in the last election, seatwise, this is very much pure guesswork on your part.[/quote]

Of course it's guesswork? Like I've said on more than one occasion now, I've given my reasoning and logic as to why I think that way. Now, with you being a Labour supporter that wanted the Lib Dems to let the Tories get on with a minority government you must be of the opposite opinion and think Labour would win a 2nd election. That too is pure guesswork. What's your point?

[quote]As I said Bolton Council have announced that the cuts will produce a 40% cut in the size of and services availabe from the council. It won't take much more of this before it is difficult to see the Tories getting a majority in any election.[/quote]

Eh? Bolton Council cuts wouldn't have happened in a minority Conservative government and so you're argument that this means a Conservative government won't get a majority in another election is bogus. If you have thought this through at all (rather than just being a forum troll for a full month) you'd have to give me your reasoning how a minority Conservative government could push things through that would piss people off enough that we get a massive swing back to Labour. I'm still waiting on your reasoning because you're keeping your thoughts close to your chest. I mean, we all have ideas on how things pan out, don't we? What's up, scared?

[quote]But like a drowning man, I will leave you hanging on to the wreckage of your political beliefs.[/quote]

Drowning man or not, you're the guy sat on the bank pointing and criticising my stroke technique......if only you had the bottle to get in the water yourself !wink!

Again, you've gone on and on and on and on and on.........it's almost as if you're feeding off winding me up. That would make you a troll and I really should ignore you. If you want a debate then come into the water, David, because you've added nothing apart from criticism.

I'm going to stop feeding the troll.

I suspect that it is best if you don't post in the early hours.

If you need to know why, read your post again. Not much factual stuff in there is there? All blather really.

You said,
"You're just to fundamentalist in your politics to tolerate anything different or new"

Not true. I have no problem with centre-right or centre-left coalitions. That's different, that's new!

To summarise then, I disagree with you and hold my line in the argument. Therefore I am a troll according to you. Oh dear! Hardly Cicero is it?

Anyway, just to show I have no hard feelings about your blather, I will take one of your "statements" and provide some instruction for you. Here goes.

You said
"If you have thought this through at all (rather than just being a forum troll for a full month) you'd have to give me your reasoning how a minority Conservative government could push things through that would piss people off enough that we get a massive swing back to Labour. I'm still waiting on your reasoning because you're keeping your thoughts close to your chest. I mean, we all have ideas on how things pan out, don't we? What's up, scared?

Now pay attention! One of the options the Lib Dems could have gone for (as suggested by the former Lib Dems leaders who know less about what the Lib Dems should do than your good self apparently) is that of confidence and supply. In that scenario the Lib Dems would either vote for or abstain from the vote on a Tory budget and a vote of no confidence (if one is tabled). But the Lib Dems would judge other proposals on merit and would reserve the right to vote against the Tories on them which obviously they cant do in the coalition without threatening the coalition and their own futures in the Lib Dems.

The advantage to the Lib Dems of this approach is that they would, according to the Blessed Cleggie, be acting in the national interest (he's keen on the national interest) to get measures to reduce the deficit going, in order to avoid fiscal calamity.

On the other hand, the Lib Dems would not be welching on their principles re. education, defence, immigration, student fees, foreign policy etc etc. And therefore, would not be totally tainted. As soon as the Tory budget measures started kicking in, the Tories of course, would not be everyone's favourite uncles and leave themselves vulnerable in a snap election. "The massive swing back to Labour" that you refer to is of course nonsense. There is no massive swing required to get Labour back in power. The Conservatives are a minority government based on their results until the Lib Dems bailed them out.

There you go, complete guesswork, but I felt your blathering deserved some comment!

Of course the other down side for Cleggie and his senior chums is that they wouldn't have a cabinet job. Maybe this is one of the cool things about the coalition for the Clegster and chums?

Yesterday, Cameron predicted "years of pain" in Britain, with welfare benefits and public sector services in the frontline for shredding, while Clegg spoke of "progressive cuts" and vowed there would be no return to Thatcherite economics.

I trust that after the emergency budget you will alert your Grannie to the "progressive cuts" coming her way, Sam?

Tootle pip!
D

[quote]I suspect that it is best if you don't post in the early hours.[/quote]

Bitchy!

[quote]If you need to know why, read your post again. Not much factual stuff in there is there? All blather really.[/quote]

More bitchiness.

[quote]To summarise then, I disagree with you and hold my line in the argument. Therefore I am a troll according to you. Oh dear![/quote]

No. A proper summary would be: you question and criticise other people's views without really giving out much on your views, then the debates and arguments become very one-sided. It's not been a month of us sharing and comparing our own views but more a month-long Q&A session for Sam with a few 'blather', 'naive' and 'ignorant' jibes thrown in. I've been happy to play along but after a month of it it's become clear that you're more interested in getting a reaction out of me more than anything. This seems obvious when you constantly state this will be your last word on the subject only for me to come back the next day and find another two replies, or a fun little 'quiz', or maybe you starting another exchange on yet another thread and then have the audacity to say YOU are bored! That's trolling, my friend.

[quote]Now pay attention! One of the options the Lib Dems could have gone for (as suggested by the former Lib Dems leaders who know less about what the Lib Dems should do than your good self apparently) is that of confidence and supply.[/quote]

Yes, we've already discussed this. It's nothing new. And I've pointed out that maybe the Lib Dems felt that this wasn't the best way to represent their voters (they've said as much). I've also never intimated in any way that 'I know more about what the Lib Dems should do than the Paddy Ashdowns of this world.' Again, that's trolling. What I will say is that, as I've already admitted to (and I never argued against even though you took my admission as some sort of small victory!) is that the Paddy Ashdowns you're talking about no doubt realise the coalition is most likely going to be bad for the Lib Dems. They disagree with the direction the party took. They've not gone on to say the party are all 'closet tories' and how all the Lib Dem voters are 'naive'....or mentioned anything about us all being 'shafted'. Why haven't they? Because Nick Clegg, on more than one occasion said that he'd talk first with the party that got the most vote share if we got a hung parliament. And all polls leading up to the election showed the Conservatives in the lead so it was obvious to me, and other Lib Dem supporters, that Clegg would give the Tories first opportunity to form a coalition. We all knew the score before going to the ballot box. If he'd come out and said he'd NEVER form a coalition with the Tories, or said he'd NEVER compromise on this, this and this policy during any coalition talks then you could say he'd gone back on his promise and we'd all been 'shafted'. I'm sure I've mentioned this before......probably more than once. We're going round in circles because your opinion of naivety and being shafted are bollocks and you don't want to admit it. I'll repeat something else I've said before: Labour could have legally formed a coalition with the Lib Dems and put Nick Clegg in such a position where he couldn't refuse a centre-left coalition. Labour, I think out of self interest, (and you admitted yourself that part of it was because they didn't want the label of 'coalition of the losers') didn't want to be in government. I doubt many Labour voters voted for them to give in so easily; I think many Labour voters would rather have had Labour hang in there and form a centre-left alliance. I know I would if I'd have voted Labour.

[quote]But the Lib Dems would judge other proposals on merit and would reserve the right to vote against the Tories on them which obviously they cant do in the coalition without threatening the coalition and their own futures in the Lib Dems.[/quote]

Well, I'm glad you now admit they can at least abstain (where as before you said they couldn't). And if things the Tories did really were unpalatable then I'm sure there'd be enough Lib Dem backbenchers who would get together and do just that, without threatening their own futures. Lib Dem voters are more to the left than most Labour voters. With many Labour voters it's more about class than political positioning. This is true for many Tory voters too. If it gets really bad the coalition will just break up and we'll get another election. For now, though, there are enough open-minded MPs who are willing to compromise and give this thing a chance. We, the people, should expect that from well educated adults. It's commonplace in Europe, after all. Maybe they're more intelligent and pragmatic than we are (or at least not as childish).

[quote]On the other hand, the Lib Dems would not be welching on their principles re. education, defence, immigration, student fees, foreign policy etc etc. And therefore, would not be totally tainted. As soon as the Tory budget measures started kicking in, the Tories of course, would not be everyone's favourite uncles and leave themselves vulnerable in a snap election.[/quote]

The Tories would be stupid to do anything drastic while being a minority government. They'd leave things as is and carry on blaming the previous government for what's happening. The majority Tory and Murdoch press would spend months hammering that home too. "Why isn't the economy recovering and the pound taking a beating? Because we're a minority government and our hands are tied!" "We just don't have the power to right the wrongs of the last government and get the debt under control, and the economy moving again!" You must see the excuses and front-pages now. No, better to have a majority government who can at least attempt to put things back on track (be that a single party or coalition). If they do a good job then we all win. If they don't they can be fully culpable for what they do. Sorry, I still see a Conservative majority if we have a 2nd election.

[quote]There you go, complete guesswork, but I felt your blathering deserved some comment![/quote]

Oooh....yet more bitchiness.

[quote]Of course the other down side for Cleggie and his senior chums is that they wouldn't have a cabinet job. Maybe this is one of the cool things about the coalition for the Clegster and chums?[/quote]

Yeah, it's really cool to be labelled 'power-hungry closet tories' and paint a big massive bullseye on your head. Whatever Cleggie's motivations he took the party with him. This tells me the party want to represent the people who voted for them rather than follow the advice of their PR advisers. Only a select few actually gain any real power and influence in government. I doubt the whole party would have followed Clegg for the gain of a select few.

[quote]Yesterday, Cameron predicted "years of pain" in Britain, with welfare benefits and public sector services in the frontline for shredding, while Clegg spoke of "progressive cuts" and vowed there would be no return to Thatcherite economics.[/quote]

Nothing really to do with what we're debating, is it?